Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit
Date: 2024-09-10 17:33:36
Message-ID: CA+TgmobO38XspYqjZ9Bx3T18x5c8C65Dm=gYu9hVzX5Ftnrq2g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 12:59 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I still think that we'd be better off to just return an error to the client in
> postmaster, rather than deal with this dead-end children mess. That was
> perhaps justified at some point, but now it seems to add way more complexity
> than it's worth. And it's absurdly expensive to fork to return an error. Way
> more expensive than just having postmaster send an error and close the socket.

The tricky case is the one where the client write() -- or SSL_write() -- blocks.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-09-10 17:43:36 Re: [PATCH] Add CANONICAL option to xmlserialize
Previous Message Noah Misch 2024-09-10 17:27:12 Re: [PATCH] pg_stat_activity: make slow/hanging authentication more visible